A grand
jury issued an indictment charging defendants with ten counts
of aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1028A(a)(1) and 2, and one count of possession
of an unauthorized access device in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1029(a)(3) and 2. (Docket 1). Defendants filed
separate motions to suppress physical evidence seized during
the course of a traffic stop and any custodial statements
made by the defendants during the stop. (Dockets 97, 103
& 105). The motions to suppress were referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Daneta Wollmann pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and the standing order of March 9, 2015.
An evidentiary hearing was held on March 7 and March 9, 2016.
(Docket 109). Magistrate Judge Wollmann issued a report and
recommendation (“R&R”) on defendants'
motions to suppress. (Docket 125). The magistrate judge
recommended defendants' motions to suppress be granted in
part and denied in part. Id. at p. 26. The
government timely filed objections to the report and
recommendation. (Docket 156). The defendants filed responses
to the government's objections. (Dockets 162, 164 &
169).

Under
the Federal Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), if a
party files written objections to the magistrate judge's
proposed findings and recommendations, the district court is
required to “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.”
Id. The court may “accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” Id. See also Fed. R.
Crim. P. 59(b)(3).

The
court completed a de novo review of those portions
of the R&R to which objections were filed. For the
reasons stated below, the court finds the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation is an appropriate
application of the law to the facts presented by the parties
at the suppression hearing. For the reasons stated below, the
government's objections are overruled and the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge is adopted in its
entirety.

GOVERNMENT
OBJECTIONS

The
government objects to the R&R asserting the magistrate
judge erred in making the following factual determinations:

2. [T]hat [Trooper Bader] thought criminal activity was
afoot, but he could not seem to articulate what he suspected
the defendants were doing wrong until he searched their
belongings. Id. ¶ 6 (quotation marks omitted).

3. Trooper Bader testified that it was only after he began
searching that he took pictures of the property in the
vehicle because it was at that point he became suspicious of
criminal activity and the potential need to seize property as
evidence. Id. ¶ 7 (quotation marks omitted).

4. [D]espite the claim of excessive nervousness, there were
no other factors at the time Trooper Bader extended the stop
to find objective reasonable suspicion. Id. ¶ 8
(quotation marks omitted).

3. [A]fter Trooper Bader advised Sesay that he was going to
issue a warning ticket that the purpose of the stop was then
complete. Id. ¶ 4 (quotation marks and brackets
omitted).

4. [T[hat the following does not amount to reasonable
suspicion: high end clothing the defendants wore, the cards
in the center console, the inconsistent answers from the
defendants about their itinerary, the direction of travel and
the nervousness of the defendants. Id. ¶ 5
(quotation marks omitted).

5. Trooper Bader did not have probable cause to search the
vehicle and . . . the Defendants did not consent to a search
of the vehicle. Id. ¶ 10 (quotation marks,
brackets and capitalization omitted).

6. [W]here the stop and investigation should have ended, the
prolonged stop began. Thus, the first factor favors the
Defendants. Id. ¶ 11 (quotation marks omitted).

7. [T]here was no break between the illegal extension and
request for consent. Id. ¶ 12 (quotation marks
omitted).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Trooper
Bader observed an east-bound vehicle which appeared to be
traveling above the posted 65 mph speed limit. Id.
The vehicle was determined to be traveling 69 mph by the
trooper&#39;s radar system. Id. Defendant Victor
Sesay, [6] the driver of the subject vehicle,
testified he was using a GPS device which indicated he was
not exceeding the posted speed limit. Id. at pp.
2-3. He testified there were other vehicles in the vicinity
traveling faster than his vehicle. Id. at p. 3.
Trooper Bader stated that while there were other ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.